Dicey Desperados: Desperados of Dice Town

Desperados of DiceTown is a simple game with some interesting strategic twists. Here's the deal.. Each player is assigned a gang of 5. Each of these gang members is shaped like a double sided coaster. If there is any place that the publishers scrimped on it was the thickness of these circular figures that are used so much in the game. I fear that they will wear out quickly, for they are doubtful no thicker than a piece of construction paper. Each of these gang members has an icon-- a bottle, a fist, a knife, a derringer, or a two-gun. The stronger characters (named last) are hardest to get into play but do more against other players once they are in play. The characters start out in jail... Each of them placed in a way where the largest number (on the strongest character it is a six) placed at the top. When the player activates this character he rotates the circular marker to the next number and when he reduces past the number 1 the character is released from jail. Until a character is out of jail he cannot attack or defend, so this is vital. The game is built around dice rolling.. There are four dice provide and the available faces are one of the five character icons or a big EXPLOSION type icon that indicates an action. A player may roll up to three times, choosing to reroll as he wishes, attempting to collect at last one character icon and one action icon. The number of action icons rolled will always be a maximum of three, but a player may roll two action icons and two character icons and divide up his actions, should he choose. Once the character is out of jail he begins to attack other players. So, the two-gunned characters attack (steal money) has more affect than a 3 numbered character (the fist)... However, if the other players have that character out of jail then his character blocks the attack. This really tends to slow down a 2 player game. So, a player attacking with a fist character attacks all players who have not managed the release of their fist character. This can get wild and wooly in a four player game (the maximum number of players).. Should a player not manage to get an action icon, he or she will be rewarded with a dirty trick card to be played on a later turn. When money is stolen, it goes to the center of the table (My Doomtown roots has me calling it the town square) and normally will not be returned to the player. (There are two exceptions-- one a special power and one a dirty trick card)... So losing money is very bad. If a player is bankrupt he is out of the game. At any point that a player has all of their characters out of jail and has the most money he/she wins the game. So balancing out attacks and getting your characters closer to release is essential. The special powers also add some flavor to the game. Each leader has special abilities.. For example, Pedro is able, when activated, to retrieve money from the table).. another leader is able to facilitate the release of his gang faster... yet another leader joins his gang in attacking the bad guys... and finally, the last one picks up extra dirty trick cards. These special powers help advance strategy, which helps make this a bit more than ad advanced yahtzee game. The game has a neat western flavor, and unlike some games I play, that flavor is actually there to enhance the game a bit. The artwork is very well done, and the game components like the money counters (poker chips) are nice, with the exception of the cheap coaster-like character markers. The cards are not full-sized, but neither are they the tiny things found in some Euro games. Desperados of DiceTown is a neat little quick game, nice for when you are waiting for others to play something more serious and of greater length. It is family friendly, and seriously a lot of fun. Better than one would think a simple dice gang could be.

Riding the Rails Again- BOXCARS

Players who are familiar with Avalon Hill's "Rail Baron" may be delighted that it is back in print. Well, sort of, anyway. Rio Grande Games has released the game under its original title "Boxcars." The game is essentially the same game with only 1 or 2 minor rules changes. Perhaps best described as Railroad monopoly with rail movement, this classic game inspired many nights of pleasure in our home, in fact, I think my copy is pretty much worn out.. Not even certain where it is.. so I'll be upgrading. The goal of the game is to move to destinations and then purchase railroads. As players reach destination they are paid for their trip. However, they must pay $1,000 per turn on a railroad line that they don't own. If they own the line, costs are reduced to nothing.

Boxcars features one major change, a double-sided board that allows players to choose between playing in the United Kingdom or the United States (I prefer the United States version).

The components are really quite nice, with some exceptions. I like the deed cards, which are mounted on a board instead of being flimsy cardstock. However, on the map the specific logos could have had the distinctive track pattern printed below them for ease of reference. The destination and payoff charts will cause the player to go blind trying to read the tiny font. However, there is already a smartphone ap for choosing homes and/or destinations and it when it is used it also gives the expect payoff a player will receive when he reaches that destination. The ap is really nice, but does not excuse the poorly designed destination charts. Also, Rio Grande should have printed those charts on the back of the rulebook or at least printed extra charts so every player could easily access these.

Boxcars is a real taste of nostalgia, but brings Rail gaming back for a new generation. An excellent game, easily played and enjoyed by young gamers as well as older. I highly recommend this title.

We didn't Start the Fire- Cavemen: The Quest For Fire

I've had several opportunities now to play Cavemen:The Quest for Fire, a card game published by Rio Grande Games. This game was interesting enough that I purchased a copy for myself. This is a very interesting game with a lot going for it. There is always something a player can do in this game, though at time, nothing a player can do to win. Each player begins with a tribe containing a leader and a hunter. Then a random player is chosen to begin by pulling a card and seeing how many DOTS (pebbles) it contains. Every card in the game has a number of these pebbles for randomization, etc. That player becomes the bearer of the CONCH shell, which demonstrates that he is a GREAT leader, I guess. The holder of the conch shell will get to take the first action in a round as well as a bonus action after all other players have taken their actions. A number of cards are displayed face up. There are cavemen cards that a player may pay the cost and recruit into his tribe. There are invention cards and players must have a certain level of cards with the light bulb icon points (some of the thinker cavemen have level 1 or level 2 thinking capability- expressed by a number adjacent to the light bulb icon) on them within his tribe in order to claim an invention. For example, to make fire and win the game a player must have a minimum of 7 light bulb points in his tribe in order to complete and win the game. (He also must control the conch in order to make fire and win the game).Players may pay the cost to "discover" a new cave, thereby creating room in their tribe for additional tribesmen. Perhaps the most important aspect, though, is that players may also choose to HUNT a dinosaur card. Players must have an adequate level of hunting skill in their tribe in order to hunt the dinosaur. If he does, he can claim the reward, payable in meat and teeth (the coinage inthe game). After hunting, the player must flip the top card of his deck and if he has any member of his tribe that matches the number of pebbles on that card then the player must lose a tribesman (his choice which) card. Hunting can be brutal, but players can reduce their chances of losing a tribesman by selecting tribesmen cards that all have the same number of dots, but that will slow down the game considerably for a player and probably not a recommended course of action. Players can safely forage, which means that they total up the foraging icons (represented by an apple) and get that amount of meat with no danger to themselves. The invention cards are well-thought out and allow the player to break normal rules. For example, the coolest card in the game is the bow and arrow which allows a player to hunt without risk of losing a tribesman card. Other inventions provide bonus teeth or meat, or simply increase skills such as hunting or thinking. The key to the game is really controlling the conch shell and knowing when you should bid for it. Unfortunately, the conch shell bidding is ALL done using teeth, which are more difficult to get than meat. Another problem is that he who controls the conch must feed his people better than non-conch holders. Normal cost for feeding your tribe is one piece of meat. The conch holder must pay one piece of meat for each tribesman. Therefore, early in the game, players must begin recruiting hunters, killing the biggest dinosaurs and collecting teeth, because teeth are needed to bid for the conch shell, and to create fire, players need the conch shell, the requisite amount of thinking power, and the FIRE invention card, which may not be displayed when the player is ready to create it. The fact that other players can view your tribe means that they know when you are able to win the game. This can create a sour moment as all players can realize that player A has the elements needed to win, AND more teeth than other players so the winner is usually determined by all players conceding that he\she is unstoppable. I managed (in my fifth or sixth game) to gain a SNEAKY win, but it was more because players were not paying attention to what cards were available during the bidding phase. This will likely be rare. The game is a short one. Most games seem to last thirty-forty minutes, and it is easily learned. At the last gathering we lamented the fact that this is a simple building game and there was nothing players could do to really affect the other players other than taking a card that they might want. We're hoping that an expansion will include some sort of raid card. Either way, this is an interesting card game with a lot of things going on. I'd give it a score of 7 on a scale of 1-10.

Underground Railroad- FUNDED via Kickstarter

I got this email from Academy Games today. I first read of this game via a link on facebook and responded that the game looks like it is pretty buys, sort of multipersonalitied! I also pointed out some possible ahistorical problems.. However, the game looks interesting enough, I wanted to let my readers, few as they are, know it is around. The problem I think I will have with the game is that it is a COOPERATIVE game, and I don't often like those. 'Freedom' on Kickstarter 'Freedom - The Underground Railroad' exceeds its funding goal in the first 24 hours! Freedom is a cooperative game for 1 to 4 players who take on the roles of Abolitionists striving to end slavery. Cooperatively, you build and finance the Abolitionist cause, while helping to move Slaves from southern plantations to freedom in Canada. Large Game Board with the Economic and Political engine on the left and the Underground Railroad movement and Slave Markets on the right. You will be countered by Slave Catchers that react to every move you make, along with opposing laws and social events that you must together react to and overcome in order to win. Slave Catchers react by moving along their specific paths towards Slave movements. Captured Slaves are sent back to the Slave Markets, which re-populate the Southern Plantations each round. If players have not moved enough Slaves out of the Plantations to freedom, excess incoming slaves are moved to the Slaves Lost Card,which when filled ends the game in a loss for the players. You may purchase Abolitionist Cards to help your cause against Slavery. However, Opposition cards may be revealed and can devastate your plans, so you must counter them quickly! Freedom is a challenging game that will keep you and up to three of your friends playing over and over.

First Look: Another D & D boardgame: Lord of Waterdeep

Let me preface the following remarks by reminding my loyal, faithful, readers that when I reference a first look I am describing a game I have played on a limited basis, providing reasons why I did or did not care for the game, some elements I may have found interesting, and finally telling whether I will play it again. Later on, I might provide a rebuttal, especially if extended play reveals a broken game mechanism or element. ****************** I'm not a real fan of placement games. You know where you and your opponents take turns placing tokens, taking up available spaces and some sort of privilige or resource before the other guy can do so. However, my friend, Marty, brought this one to a small gathering (there were three of us) and we played this one twice. It is published by Wizards of the Coast and set in a D&D setting, but doesn't really have any RPG type elements.

Players have two tokens (agents) at the beginning of the game. They recruit adventurers (which serve as primary resources) of various colors. It isn't really important to know that the purple cubes stand for cleric and the black cubes represent rogues, etc. When a player places his token on a space he might earn cubes, gold or a card, or a privilige.. he might also purchase building which come into play under his control and therefore obtains a benefit should any player place his token onto that building. Gaining gold and various color cubes is important because players earn victory points and some other benefits by completing quests. Every quest requires an expenditure of resources, whether gold or cubes. Some quests have ongoing benefits for the remainder of the game. Some provide a return of adventurer cubes and\or gold. Harder quests reward with large victory point payment. Players are able to see, for the most part, who is winning the game, but that, of course, changes as the game progresses. I say that players can see who is winning for the most part because every player has a "secret" Lord which provides various alternative objectives. For example, each completed quest with the piety trait might provide a Lord with extra victory points at the end of the game, so there is some secret stuff. At the heart of the game are the intrigue cards. These cards are typically "stick-it-to-your-opponent" cards or they provide some much needed assistance. These cards may take cubes from other players, provide a player with extra cubes, or allow some other action that affects the game. The limitation is that in any game round only three intrigue cards can be played because a player must place his token on the space to play that card and there are only three spaces. However, another cool feature is to allow the players who choose to RE-ASSIGN tokens places on that space AFTER all the normal placement for the turn is complete. I found myself struggling to find a proper strategic balance in this one. In the first game I was always short of gold and so in the second game I found myself using placements that would earn me gold. In the first game I owned and controlled no building, in the second game I was the player who owned and controlled the most buildings. In the first game I fought hard to complete quests and was ahead of the other players for most of the game. Honestly, I did not find the right strategic balance, but I can see that it is there, but there is some chaotic stuff going on based on the other players using intrigue cards or placing on the space that I need-- so I can see that the best laid plans of mice and players can easily be messed up, usually unintentionally. I can see that a FIVE player version of this game (the maximum) would be very, very difficult and perhaps frustrating. We played three and I felt it was well balanced for a three player game because two players could not agree to tag-team a third player. It doesn't look like a two player game would be much fun, but I will reserve a solid opinion until I see such. All in all, my first two games were enjoyable and we asked our friend to bring it to our next session. It looks like it might be a nice game to add to our rotation and thus far we've enjoyed it. However,

Thrift Store Games

I love shopping at the local Salvation Army or Goodwill. In the area near the church where I pastor there are four thrift stores within blocks of each other, all well stocked. I like to browse the stores in search of anything game related and occasionally I actually find something. In one of my searches, I found an intact, unplayed boxed campaign set for Dungeons and Dragons' Dark Sun campaign. Since I don't play it-- it became available on my ebay account. I paid $2.00 for it and sold it for $12.00 as I recall. This stoked the fire and I intensified my search. I discovered a copy of Avalon Hill's "Feudal" and it also went via ebay for a small profit. Then, I thought I hit the jackpot-- I found a still in shrink wrap copy of "Carcassone"-- I bought it not knowing whether I would play it or sell it. Months later I let it go for $15.00 on ebay, a profit of $12.00. Another find was a copy of Risk 2210 (or whatever the number is) but I discovered it was missing a number of pieces and I sold it for parts. By the time I paid the shipping I underestimated, I lost about $2.00. Not to mention my time. My friend, Alfonzo, seems to do better in his quests than I do. Perhaps he just hits the stores on the right days or shops in a better neighborhood than I do. I picked up a copy of Avalon Hill's Alexander at a thrift store, and really enjoyed it messing around solitaire with it. I paid like $8.00 for it, but felt it to be a bargain. Once upon a time, these old games went in the trash, but now we recycle them via thrift stores, or more likely, EBay. Americans don't seem to throw anything away.

A Few Acres 0f Wilderness War

One of the most interesting conflicts in American history is what we call the French and Indian Wars, though it was but an extension of the Seven Year War in Europe. It was a period of terror for those on the frontier because both sides were using Native American Allies to strike fear into the settlers. It was primarily a period of expansion coupled with raids and sneak attacks. As a fan of GMT's "Wilderness War" I was anxious to try "A Few Acres of Snow" from the time I first heard a podcast describing it. I got a chance to get a quickplay at a local Con about a year ago and I was impressed. Recently, my buddy Mark and I played three games in a row at a receent game club. "A Few Acres of Snow" designed by Martin Wallace uses deck building to build interest and to drive the game. Each turn, players may take two actions. A player might discard cards to gain money, or he might expand territory, or send Native Americans out on a raid, or begin or continue a siege of an enemy fortification. He might place cards in reserve (visible to his opponent and possibly vulnerable, but available for a later turn) or he might "draft" (buy new cards -- some cards are free). Settlement is rather clever, because a player has to have a card that allows him to "leave" a location, a second card with the proper icon to travel to the location he wants to go to from that location, and a third card with a settlers icon in order to settle an area. Expanding a settlement requires playing a location card and a card with a settlers icon on it. We played three different games with varied results. There is a shallow learning curve and we kept grasping the simplistic mechanism but the depth of strategy. I was really thrilled that both of us used a different strategy each game with varying results. In our final game, as the British, I made a foolish decision to continue pressing a siege that would've offered me a very minor return in victory points even if successful, while my opponent wisely let the siege continue while expanding his settlements (which doubled his victory points for those controlled locations). We both learned the importance of fortifications (Indians cannot raid past them) and the importance of cards that block raids. (an unblocked raid can deprive an opponent of a victory point, and is worth at least two victory points for the raider)... Players also earn "location" cards when they settle an area. For example, the British player settles Cumberland and therfore the Cumberland location card is added to his deck. Location cards have icons on them that allow them to add military to a siege, or possibly obtain gold, or fur that can be traded for gold, or settlers, etc. They also might have a transport icon (ships, boats, roads) to allow a player to move to a new location. But also, each location card has "connections" that allow players to move to other locations. The game is really cool and in a six hour period we played three games and all three were different, even though my opponent and I stuck with the same side both times. The rules were well organized and very, very clear. They were short and simple, and best of all, available in PDF format so that I could easily access them via my ipad. I'm glad to see more and more game publishers doing this. There seems to be a lot of game and a lot of variety in this game. When I describe it as a deck-building game some might think of "Dominion" a popular Euro style game. This game is not really "Dominion" and there are many more choices in a turn. I think this is a great entry level wargame.. no charts, no dice.. just cards and blocks. Is it any wonder that the first edition of this game sold out and was going for an arm and leg on Ebay. The 2nd Edition has now been released (with some minor rules tweaks) and soon I will manage to get a copy for myself. This is a quality game and I think it is one of those games that comes along once in a blue moon that is worth playing over and over. I've got FOUR plays under my belt. Stay tuned and if my opinion changes, I'll let you know here and I'll let you know why.

Orks in Space! Battlefleet Gothic!

My recent gaming experiences have been with an older miniature game called Battlefleet Gothic. This is a shit-to-ship combat game set in outer space in some far away nebula, galaxy, or universe. There are dark and evil forces at work! My favorite faction is sort of an underdog faction, but one of the cheapest to build fleets with. I like the Orks. These guys are sort of dumb brutes and their ships reflect that character. Some of their ships are nothing more that Brute Rams, designed to run into other ships. Others are nothing more than hollowed out asteroids retrofitted with bits and pieces from some cosmic junkyard. So where do you get miniature ateroids? Would you believe Home Depot? Yup.. most of my Ork models came from Home depot and had some finishing touches put together from leftover pieces from other ship models. My buddy, Scott LeMaster, put them together for me and they are fantastic. This brings me to my biggest gripe about miniature games. If you play either you demonstrate your cheapness and lack of skill by using unpainted miniatures (some circles frown on this) or you pay someone with skill to paint your armies for you. God forbid that you would actually take the time to learn to paint your own miniatures! So either you scrub some paint on your minis and show up with painted figures that look worse than a Picasso portrait or you pay an expert. Then the other factor is going to be buying the miniatures. Bsttlefleet Gothic appears to be a defunct game (the rulebooks are available for free at the Games Workshop Website) and no longer strongly supported. Therefore, you start scrounging the flea markets at the local gaming conventions, or you spend on ebay and pay beaucoup bucks for shipping those heavy units. Hey, I make a living as a working pastor and don't have time for assembling and painting anyway. So why do I like this game? First, entry level for an Ork player is next to nothing using the lava rocks picked up at the Home Depot. Second, in our local group, 750 point fleets are pretty much maximum, therefore keeping up with the other guys is not a big deal using my rocks and the few I purchased off of Ebay. So, with my second hand books and minis, my cheap rocks and Ebay finds, I'm pretty much as invested as I am going to get. After all, the new Fleets are coming out every six months or so. So, my entry level investment is low and that is a bonus factor for me, so I list it as number one. Second, the rules are simple enough to comprehend and get into play quickly. The Quick Reference card is excellent for most things and I can have the downloaded rules loaded on my ipad for quick reference if there is an issue I really need to look up. Nothing too difficult and the only rule that has seen significant change (to my knowledge) relates to how the Nova Cannon works. It isn't as if there is a ton of errata, unlike many of my favorite wargames. Third, I like the way the rules are explained and organized. The designers spent a lot of time designing a system that covered lots of variables and circumstances. They designed a number of races and powers and each faction is provided with options that make playing each one a unique experience with a need for its own unique strategy. None of the factions is overpowered or unconquerable. Finally, the best reason. I like the guys I play this game with. Steve is the consumate diplomat, always willing to explain a rule before a novice player does something stupid like move his miniature off the table by accident. Marty is a careful strategist who thinks every move out thoroughly. Scott is a fierce competitor who never lets you forgot the rule of payback. (payback is always double!) An evening gathered around a table playing Battlefleet Gothic with these guys is a pleasure.

What was Avalon Hill Thnking?

I was listening to a podcast this week and part of the discussion touched on the font size in some of the old Avalon Hill Wargames. This led me to pull out my copy of "Afrika Korps" to see if it was really as bad as both the podcast hosts and I recalled. I was shocked to find out that it was even worse. The podcast host described the font size as 6 pt. Well, it looked more like 4 pt. to me. Sure they managed to fit the rules for "Afrika Korps" into just 15 pages of a small sized book which is mostly illustrations. Didn't they know that font size practically required a magnifying glass or powerful magnification reading glasses? As I recall, the rules for UP FRONT (and a number of other great games) also suffered from the Honey-I've-Shrunk-the-Rules syndrome. Recently, a friend needed a copy of ATTACK SUB rules to complete his collection. While those rules are printed on 8 1/2" x 11" paper and only comprise four or five pages, once again, that teeny-tiny almost microscopic print size was used. What I think I did was send him the original set of rules and use the enlarge feature on my photocopier at word to make my own enlarged set. Before trying to introduce my friends into WIZARD's QUEST, I took the rules and typed up a simple rules summary-- not because the rules were long and complicated, but because the print was so small that I felt I needed a microscope in order to read these rules and I knew that they would balk at attempting to read such miniscule print. Honestly, I don't think Avalon Hill's design department ever imagined that 50-70 year old people would still be picking up these old games via ebay, Thrift Stores, or game convention auctions. I don't think they envisioned the long shelf life of games. I don't think they understood that while the people playing these games in the 1970's were college and career age (some were teens) that these players would still be active in the hobby after their grandchildren were born. Their goal must have been simply to make the rulebooks as well-organized (they didn't always succeeed with that) and as short as possible. I know that the size of a rulebook intimidates many players. One of my first wargames was WILDERNESS WAR which has, as I recall, a fourteen or fifteen page rulebook. The gamer introducing it to me said "It only has a short rulebook." To me, the rules looked huge compared to games like Monopoly or Milles Bournes. To this day, my opinion of the WILDERNESS WAR rulebook remains solidly positive. It is well organized, has a readable font, and offers a clear understanding of the game leaving little or no room for questions. In recent years, one seller on EBAY is offering all of the materials he can gather on a game in PDF format on a CD. Perhaps those rules can be enlarged and printed out, I haven't bothered to see if this is the case. So, here's the scam artist in my thinking.. Would it be legal to create a new set of rules for these old games, streamlining, incorporating official errata,setting them in a font size visible by someone who was not endowed with Superman's enhanced vision and then offering them for a modest fee via the internet? Believe me, I have a lot of important projects to accomplish before I attempted such a project, but it would be nice to see rules printed in a font size that was actually readable. Ahhh... I figured it out. What was Avalon Hill thinking? That man was evolving so fast that gamers would develope enhanced vision that would allow them to read print designed to be small billboards for ant communities.

Bring Back the Classics

Most wargamers have a special place in their hearts for old Avalon Hill titles. Many folks cut their gaming teeth on such classics as Afrika Korps, Stalingrad, Luftwaffe, Hannibal: Rome Vs. Carthage, We the People, etc. The sorrow is that these old games wear out. They also get damaged in floods, fires, or idiot gamer friends who spill ULTRA GULP sized drinks on them. Good luck finding a decent copy on ebay, boardgamegeek, or the Consimworld marketplace. Sadly, the copyright license to a lot of these wonderful products is held, apparently in perpetuity, by greedy corporate morons employed by HASBRO. Avalon Hill, once known for its quality wargames, has become a repository for Euro style games that have little or no resemblance to an actual wargame. Instead of allowing another game company the privilige of printing the game, Hasbro would rather hold many of those titles hostage. Of course, there are a few exceptions, where designers were able to negotiate or otherwise wrestle the rights to their own games away from the corporate hacks. In other cases, designers were able to re-design original games into new incarnations that would not interfere with the rights of Hasbro. For example, "We the People" became "Washington's War", with some similarities to the original, but enough innovation to be a new game. Some products have returned to print. Valley Games managed to acquire the rights to what for many years was the Holy Grail of Ebay wargame purchases, "Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage." With updated graphics and rules clarifications, this title seems to have sold quite well for Valley Games. Mark Herman managed to get his card driven American Civil War epic, "For the People" printed over at GMT. Fantasy Flight Games published a really nice version of "Britannia" though the forum over on Consimworld indicates that the designer is shopping for a new publisher. Somehow, a new version of "Wooden Ships and Iron Men" is in the works. While some of us want to experience the nostalgia of playing an older title, some of us look forward to innovation. I'd love to see a new "Afrika Korps" printed maybe with some innovative rules. Or how about an update of the the old Avalon Hill "Gunslinger?" Wouldn't "Merchants of Venus" rock the Eurogamer world if it came it with some of the neat components that modern games feature? I'm certain others have their own ideas of what they would like to seed. With no disrespect intended to newer titles with the Avalon Hill brand name on them, "Battlecry" is no substitute for "Gettysberg." "Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit" is not a suitable replacement for "Starship Troopers." In the meantime, perhaps someone can explain to me the corporate mindset behind a company like Hasbro clinging to the rights to games they don't have any interest in publishing or setting such a high licensing price that the original designer can't shop around updated versions to other publishers. For that matter, why does Alderac Entertainment Group refuse to relinquish the license for Doomtown when it is obvious they lack the desire or economic ability to begin producing it once again? It is as if they fear that relinquising the rights, even for a small consideration will make them feel like the guy who trades his prizes on Let's Make a Deal only to find that behind his door is a donkey and a bale of hay. Has gaming become such a business that it is now run by people who not only do not undertand gamers, but they lack any real love for the games themselves? The obvious answer is, for some game publishers, absolutely yes!

Convention Envy

I think we all experience convention envy at some time or another. This is the emotion we feel when others start reporting back about attending PREZCON, WBC, ORIGINS, or GENCON and we know that, once again, we missed out. Why did we miss out? Work schedules, family priorities, lack of funds or lack of planning all play a part in missing some of our favorite events. So what can we do to deal with this envy? First, let's mock those who went. Try this on for size: "You spent HOW MUCH MONEY to go an play games?" Or maybe, "You didn't even PLACE in a single tournament?" Second, let's complain about how those who went failed to share the experience. For example, "You wrote down all of those details about all the games you played but you did not bother to take a single picture!" Or maybe, "How could you miss playing ________________________, its my favorite game and you didn't even know it existed?" Third, how about planning better for next year and making it happen for you? Choose the convention you want to go to. Check your calendar, start putting money in the bank (yes, sell some of those games you don't play), and start making every effort to set aside that time and go. Heck, if you can publish a magazine or create a podcast, or teach a class on game design at a prestigious educational institution, you might even find a way to write the entire trip off. So, I hope next year I don't have to suffer from Convention Envy. If I still do, I plan to give you guys who don't take pictures, etc. endless grief.. and You KNOW who you are! {grin}

Playtesting Blues

Do you ever get tired of trying to figure out what a designer meant from a written set of rules? Have you ever set down to play a game, only to discover that such a balance problem exists as to make the game an exercise in frustration? Have you ever wondered how anybody could design such a game that looks fantastic but the actual play itself is about as much fun as having an ingrown toenail removed? The answer is probably that the designer was either too close, or too distant from playtesting. There are some things about playtesting that should be obvious. I've probably stated this before, but here I go again, ranting and raving about playtesting. The major problem with platesting isn't the players, but rather the designers proximity to the playtesting process. It is my sincere opinion that a designer must insulate himself from the playtesting to some extent in order to discover a few things about the game. First, by taking a step back he can learn what portion of the written rules are unclear or ambigiuous. If he explains the ambiguity to the written rules to the entire group of playtesters, say via a mass emailing, then he may not see the need to write the rules in a clearer manner. Believe me, I've seen this done a number of times. Instead of explaining the rules as soon as a question comes up, the designer should answer the question by revisiting the portion of the rules from which the rules derive. If the designer simply explains the rules he permits the playtesters the ability to understand them. If he fails to rewrite the rules that needed such explanation he leaves them in a state that will only confuse the people who actually put out money to play the game. At least one playtester should be assigned the responsibility of compiling s simple alphabetical index to a ruleset. Of course, this may be problematice if page numbers are used as those are bound to change as the written rules are edited and rewritten for clarity. This also may not be necessary for shorter sets of written rules. I don't see the need for an index in a simple six page rulebook, but heavier rulebooks such as those use in more complex wargames nearly scream their demand for an index. If the designer is actually "playing" in the playtest, he needs to be tightlipped and utilize his keen powers of observation to note the flow of the games. In multiplayer wargames, he cannot sit back and say, "Well, I designed the French to _____________________ while I wanted the British to have a stronger ____________________." He needs to quietly see if that design intent is evident and balanced. If he openly shares his intent, players will attempt to steer the game towards that intention and skew the testing. A designer needs to be close-mouthed so that he can see if his design intent is naturally present. Finally, playtesting can not be pushed against artificial deadlines. For example, a boardgame based on a movie or book tie-in cannot have playtesting rushed because of the movie or book's release date. (saw this happen to one boardgame and what could have been a great game was harmed by huge flaws-- which were fixed, but by that time players had moved on.) I guess it is obvious that game companies should hire me to oversee their playtesting programs.. {wink} Okay, it is easy for a blogger to sit back and express his concerns, his ideas about what is wrong with playtesting, etc. However, in closing, let me state a concept that should be blatantly obvious. If a designer is too close or too far removed from the actual playtesting of a design he risks creating a game with confusing rules, poor game balance, and confused, frustrated players who will avoid his designs in the future. With that said, I have to remind the kind readers that while I speak fairly boldly about what they should and should not do, as of this writing and for the foreseeable future, I have no game designs on the market. Therefore, I'm like the movie goer who wants to tell Stephen Spielberg how he should make his film. While I think my points are valid, I'd like to know what you think?

Alien Frontiers Features Dice Placement

If you enjoy the dice placement mechanic of "Kingsberg" you might want to check out Clevermojo Games' "Alien Frontiers." In some ways, I think I like it better than "kingsberg." Why? Kingsberg has the "stick-it-to-the-other-guy" effect, that can actually prevent another player, depending on turn order, from placing some or even all of his dice. In Space Frontiers, there are limited spaces, but there is always something to do with your dice.

The dice in "Alien Frontiers" are actually space ships. The goal of the game is to dock your space ships (dice) on various spaces on the gamegboard to receive certain benefits. The goal is to take control of colonies on a planet (with areas named after great Sci-Fi writers such as Bradbury or Heinlen). Controlling an area gives you a benefit and a victory point. However, you have to dock your ships, obtain fuel and ore, and work on constructing colonies, they don't just magically appear. So players dock at a solar collector to gain fuel or at the lunar mine to obtain ore.

There is still the "stick-it-to-the-other-guy" factor, though. For instance, at the lunar mine a player has to dock a ship with a die result that is at least equal to the largest die there. So, a player might place a 6 there, causing the next player to also place a 6 there if he needs ore. Or it might cause the next player to be unable to place a die there if he didn't roll a 6.

In a major difference from Kingsberg.. players roll their dice on their own turn and complete all placement (dice stay in the spaces until their next turn) so one player doesn't know what the next player's dice will show when he is placing. Spaces are limited, with only one space having only one spot.. but docking there consumes the die (taking it out of play)as it converts a "ship" into a colony. Players can manage resources to purchase extra dice.

Mounted vs. Paper maps

One place a lot of wargame publishers save money is by printing folding paper game maps. Recently, a discussion broke out in the GMT games forum on Consimworld when it was announced that several new games would feature mounted boards. I was shocked to see that there are actually players who prefer the paper maps. For the most part it makes no difference to me, but I thought the subject was worth covering here. I suppose a factor favoring mounted boards would be durability. I'm not really certain that a mounted map will have more durability, but one assumes that if the board is properly constructed it will hold up longer than a paper map, which if mistreated is easily torn. On the other hand, a mounted board can be folded back the wrong way and then be broken. If players care for their games properly then the difference in durability will be negligible. A mounted board might allow for cleaning with a slightly damp cloth (a baby wipe) if it becomes sticky, etc. A glossy paper map might permit this as well. Of course, some people who suffer from game-owner OCD will wonder how dare someone bring food or drink to the war. One factor favoring paper maps mentioned by a player in the forum was that a paper map has more of a "military" feel to it. I guess he can imagine hunkering down in a bunker somewhere and ordering his troops about. I'd never thought of such a thing, but to a small extent I have to agree with the poster about the "feel" even though I never get that deeply immersed into my fantasy command. Paper maps certainly have an edge when it comes to weight and box-size. Especially if a gamer is packing around a number of boxed games. Obviously, a game box will have to be a bit larger to accomodate a mounted mapboard. If a gamer has a large collection of games then the space on his game shelf might be filled up more quickly. I can't think of any more reasons to prefer one over the other, except to say that while I tend to prefer mounted maps, and thicker heavier components for durability purposes, that preference doesn't translate into a factor when making a purchase. I may "oooh" and "aaah" over some really nice components, but the real deciding factor is whether or not a game offers a challenge and is enjoyable to play.

DeckBuilding- Innovative Game Mechanisms

Some years ago, Wargames took on a new subgenre as designer Mark Hermon presented "We the People" (originally published by Avalon Hill). This subgenre is the Card Driven Wargame. Following this innovative game came a number of game titles. These games rely on cards to provide the ability to move units, build units, construct defenses, or introduce historical events into a game. Now we're seeing a new type of design that may become "the next big thing" in wargames. It is the deck building mechanism. (I say mechanism because the phrase "game mechanic" would technically refer to one who repairs broken games, while a "game mechanism" would be a design concept that allows a game to function). This game mechanism is becoming popular in Euro stle games, and probably saw its genesis in the Rio Grande Publication "Dominion." Now, there are a number of titles out there that utilitze similar mechanisms to drive the game. I suppose it would be best to describe such a game for those who are unaware of them. In a deck building game, players obtain cards from a pool of cards by purchase or selection and gradually build a deck of cards that they have in their own personal deck. Such cards may provide particular benefits, victory points, or at times have more than one use. The first wargame example that I've seen of this style of game is "A Few Acres of Snow" designed by Martin Wallace and published by Treefrog games (apparently distributed in U.S. by Mayfair games). This game (for two players) allows players to play what is commonly called "The French and Indian War" between the British and the French in North America during the period shortly prior to the American Revolution. I've been trying to get my hands on a copy for some time, but online retailers seem to be sold out and the prices on Ebay have seemed exorbitant to me. In other words, it seems to be fairly highly sought after. Players either buy, draft (obtain at no cost) cards that allow them to produce income, increase defense, or permit movement to other areas. The French player makes his money primarily through trading fur while the British player collects cards that can later produce gold. Once a player takes over a village, city, or named space, he can add the card for that area into his deck. Those cards allow movement to other areas. A player has to have the right sort of movement card in order to move units into a new area. He might need a card which provides boat movement or a card which provides trail movement, etc. Some cards simply provide an attack or defense. A siege mechanism allows a player to being a siege and try to keep it going for multiple turns. Such a siege can be broken by play of militia defense cards. While I only had a limited introductory experience with "A Few Acres of Snow" I can easily see the mechanisms utilized in this non-traditional wargame becoming a new sub-genre of wargame. I don't know if this is really a good or bad thing, but I do know I want to see more of this game. Whether I want to see a World War II era game attempting to use these mechanisms or not, well, such a design I think would have to be genius. A Few Acres of Snow may serve one really strong purpose, however. It may whet player's appetite for meatier, more traditional wargames. I've heard that neumber of players who started out with this game quickly moved on to try GMT's "Wilderness War" which is an awesome card driven wargame. So, perhaps the greatest innovation is the ability to move Euro-favoring players into grognard type games.

Urban Sprawl

This weekend I played URBAN SPRAWL for the first time. This is a Euro style game published by GMT games that seems to be getting good reviews.

For now.. I'll opt to reserve my opinion on the game, but offer you a few first impressions.

FIRST, the game is BIG!!! Lots and lots of cards, along with a nice map, and some neat colored wooden blocks.

Second, there is a lot of stuff going on. Maybe too much! Lots of events occur that make me feel completely out of control. This is one of those games where you cannot really figure out the strategy without playing it a time or two, knowing that certain events happen and being prepared for them. Once you have an idea of the possible events you realize that you have to set yourself up for them. Sadly, for most of the game I sat back and watched events earn the other players money, victory points, etc. while I lagged terribly behind. One event, despite a reshuffle and only one copy in the deck happened THREE TIMES in one turn, pushing one player ahead in both money and victory points.

The basic design (outside of the events) is clever, with profits occuring for nearly every player on nearly every player's turn. The concept of bidding on projects (by selecting them using action points) and then having the leftover projects become cheaper for the next player's turn is neat. Having to have the appropriate "permits" to build these projects is also a neat design.

I really believe I was overwhelmed by my first play of this game and therefore, I reserve judgment.. overall, it looks and seems cool, but the extent of the events sort of put me off a bit. That may change with future play.

Building Your Kingdom in Kingsburg

I recently had several occasions to play a combination dice-driven/placement game called "Kingsburg." This is not your typical placement game because it allows players to create their own path to victory based on the buildings that they build.

The dice rolling and placement element of the game can be sort of cut-throat. Each player throws 3 dice (though there are sometimes extra) and then uses the results. There are advisors each numbered 1-18 on the board. In turn order (from the lowest number to the top number) Each player may make a placement. He can place all of the dice, one die, or two dice on one of the spaces (once a space is taken, no other player can select that advisor) Each advisor grant a different benefit. An advisor may grant one or more resources, military strength, or even a die-roll modification chit (which can be used to add +2 to a dice placement, but not alone).. Often, a player will have one die left over because the turn order allowed another player with the same die result to place before him. While this is something I normally don't like in placement games, something I call getting cheated by the turn order, in this game it seems to work because player's choices are all limited to what their die results are. A player might choose to make a choice that body checks another player, but he can only do so based on his die roll so it is not simply making a placement in order to be cruel to another player.

At the end of the "season" (the name for a round in play) each player can use the resources he has gained to "build." The buildings he builds can provide extra benefits like increased military strength, the ability to affect a die roll, a possible reroll, increased victory points, etc. Each player has a mat (shown below) and can build on any level, but cannot build to the right until he has built the buildings on the left.

At the end of the year, all players have to fight the "monster" card. Some players may know how strong the monster is because they were permitted to look at the card based on their dice placement. Each player who has a strong enough military strength + the die roll (same roll for one player) to beat the monster gains a benefit. Each player who is defeated by the monster suffers a penalty-- which may mean losing a building or victory points. The blue section at the bottom of the card show the Victory points gained by players who defeated the monster.

Two samples of monster cards are shown above (these are among the stronger monsters).. the number at the top, next to the name, indicates the number that the player needs to beat in order to defeat the monster. The middle section of the card show the penalties for losing against the monster. For example, it is a straight -5 Victory point loss if the dragons defeat the player while if the demons do so the player loses 1 bulding and number of victory points. When a monster kills a building it always kills the rightmost (most expensive) building. If two buildings are both in the same column then the buiding highest on the player's mat is the one that is eliminated. Also, any victory points that the player obtained for building that particular building are also lost. Players have to provide military strength to add to a single die roll in order to built the monster.

This game mechanics reward cuthroat die placement! Still, players are forced to balance the choices of building for Victory points or other benefits and building for military strength to protect from the end of the year and the monster's attack.

For our group, it was an interesting change of pace. The game does not have a steep learning curve and plays fairly quickly, though we haven't managed to complete a game in less than an hour and forty-five minutes or so. While browsing boardgamegeek I see that there is an expansion available and I'm wondering what it has to offer. In the meantime, we'll probably get a few more plays of this one under our belts in the near future. It isn't the greatest game I've ever played, but for now, it is one that is worth playing. It combines a lot of neat elements into a nice building game that works for me, a player who normally doesn't care for building and placement games.

We all live in a non-yellow Submarine!

Imagine being on a submarine where everything is going wrong! The oxygen level is dropping, the atmospheric pressure is increasing, and heat from a malfunctioning reactor is becoming intense. In addition, some compartments are flooding, others are on fire, and your fellow crew members have got into the captain's store of "grog" and are passing out. That would be the premise of Fantasy Flight Game's "Red November" a cooperative game from their silver line of smaller, less expensive games.

I guess I should begin by saying that I normally don't care for cooperative games. I like games that let me "stick it to the other guy" and that offer fierce competition. However, Red November intrigues me because its system reminds me of an addictive computer game where the player moved crates around. As the player moved crates around he either improved or harmed his situtation and ability to complete the mission. Red November offers the same challenge. It seems like the more the player does to resolve problems the more problems seem to pop up.



The Submarine board shown above is small and if you note the track around the edge, it is very difficult to use that mini-track. This was the biggest annoyance in the game, so I thought I would get that complaint out of the way. On each turn, the player can move about freely and even choose to fix problems, etc. How many minutes the player decides to use to repair a problem becomes a target number. For example, if a player choose to spend 5 minutes attempting to repair the reactor he would have a 50% chance of accomplishing this fix by rolling a five or less on a ten sided die. Here's where the really tricky part comes in... The more time he spends trying to accomplish this task, the more time marches on. As the time marker is tracked in minutes, almost every other space on the track has an event card. Events can range from the "respite" card (nothing happens.. and that's good) to a random fire breaking out, a hatch becoming jammed, missile malfunction, oxygen disaster track increasing, reactor heating up, pressure increasing, etc. Even sudden death events occur which set up a ten minute track window of resolving a problem or dying immediately. Players have to balance the use of time and the urgency of a repair because as time marches on those events keep happening. By the way, a failed repair doesn't make matters worse, it just allows time to keep on slipping into a future filled with more and more frustrating events.


Tiles represent objects that the players find to assist them in their tasks. For example, a crowbar gives a postiive modifier to unjamming a hatch. A fire extinguisher allows the player to put out a fire (so does grog, but we will get to that in a moment. One item, the lucky charm, allows a player to use up minutes but skip drawing new event cards. Events often cause a player (or all players) to discard tiles (and they are out of the game until all tiles are drawn.

Players can go to the Captain's quarters in order to draw grog tiles. Grog gives the player the fortitude to enter a room that is on fire and attempt to put the fire out. The fire extinguisher does the same thing but without the intoxicating result. A player who uses his grog (for a nice die modifier in fighting a fire) also risks becoming inebriated. When he uses the grog he indicates with his character card the inebriation status (levels 1-4) of his character. At the end of his turn he does a faint check by drawing an event card. If the inebriation number is equal to or less than the number on the card, the character passes out and ten minutes are added to the chart. This can and does happen at the worst moments. Sometimes, it causes the "ghost marker" to cross the minute where a catastrophic game ending event occurs. In one game, a fire fighting gnome used grog to fight a fire and passed out, causing the marker to go over the missile malfunction and BOOM!!! Game over.

This is the place where players either will love or hate the game. Personally, I like the uncertainty and inability to completely game the system. I like a game that has enough strategy to keep a player interested with enough wacky random stuff to keep the game uncertain. On the other hand, an individual gnome can pass out and get burned up and die halfway through the game, and it is not fun to get shut out of a game. The rule booklet suggests an optional rule for players who don't like getting eliminated from a game. Since games are social, elimination is sometimes not the best option.

I found "Red November" to be a quirky niche game. I would love to see someone program this one for the computer. It would be a great solitaire computer game.

It's Really a Wonder!

I recently was introduced to an innovative game called "7 Wonders." Apparently, the U.S. incarnation of this game is published by "Asmodee." I found this quick game to be fun and pleasureable, though not necessarly addictive. In fact, our gaming group enjoys a few rounds of it, but it isn't one of those games folks can play all night long. The really cool thing is that every game is different.

Here's how it works. Every Game begins with the selection of a Wonder. This can be done by choice or randomized. Our group has been doing it randomly. Each wonder has its own board indicating the beggining resources that position generates and the costs and rewards for building each of the wonder, whether it is the Colossus of Rhodes or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Then each player is given three gold and seven cards. Now the fun begins.

The player will select a card from his hand and then pass his hand to the left. (During the second round the hands are passed to the right, and then back to the left again for the third round). All players will use their chosen card at the same time and then repeat, until six cards have been chosen and played. (The 7th card is discarded) There are a number of types of cards. First, there are cards that produce resources such as wood, brick, stone, ore, or cloth. A player needs to be able to generate resources in order to pay the costs for other cards. Most resource cards can be put into play for free, but some of the better ones cost a gold token. There are grey resources (used more for later game purposes) and brown resources (that are more basic).


Then there are yellow "trade" cards which allow players to use resources generated by players to the left or the right (or sometimes both) at a discount. A player can always "trade" for a resource a neighboring player (immediate left or right) generates by paying that neighbor 2 gold, but the trade cards allow such a purchase to be made cheaper.

Then there are green cards representing technological advancement. These cards can combine in the end game to multiply victory points.

The red military cards provide military strength. At the end of each age, military victory points are awarded in increasing numbers, based on a player's military strength compared to his immediate neighbors. For example, Steve is sitting between Scott and Marty. At the end of the age Steve has 1 military point while Scott and Marty both have 2. Steve will receive two -2 military victory points from each of his neighbors who are beating him. Scott and Marty receive victory points for beating his military strength. In the first age, such points are 1's, in the second age, such points are worth 3, and in the final age, they are worth 5 victory points each. While Scott may be beating Steve with 2, Arash is sitting on the other side of Scott with level three military. Scott reeceives a -1 token because Arash was beating him.

The blue cards represent straight victory points provided by the artistic achievements of a culture. Cards that represent things like temples and theaters with victory points are put into play.

The purple cards come in later, offering guilds that provide victory points based on a number of things. They may offer a bonus based on the number of blue cards a player has in play. One of them offers a bonus based on the number of military cards a player's immediate neighbor has in play. Another offers bonus points based on the number of trade cards. In other words, depending on the symbols on the card the player will receive a bonus based on either his own tableu or that of his immediate neighbors.

Now that you have a basic summary of the cards, let me tell you how they are used. A player may put a card into play by generating or trading for resources, if there is a cost. (Remember, some resources come into play for free). So if a card costs one ore and one brick to put into play and I manufacture only ore, I could purchase brick from an immediate neighbor who generates brick by paying that neighbor 2 gold. Some cards are free if you have another companion card. These cards are clearly marked. A player can "burn" a card by simply discarding it and by doing so earn three gold tokens. Finally, a player can "burn" a card by using it to build a stage of his wonder, placing it face down on his board and paying the required resources either by generating them or buying them.


In the above image, you can see the player's setup of the Pyramids of Giza. At the bottom of the board you can see by the face down card tucked, he has completed the first stage of the pyramids which cost him a card play and two stone. In the upper left corner of his board his setup BEGAN the game making stone and later on he added a resource card which generated the other stone he needed in order to complete his wonder. He is also generating wood and brick. He has one military strength (indicated by the red military card) and recieved a -1 token from both left and right players, meaning that each of them had at least 2 military strenght. He has no green cards in play and one blue card, which will be worth 3 victory points at the end of the game.

Why is this fun? Because as a player looks through his hand he has to look at what cards benefit the player he is going to pass the hand to as well as what he can afford to put into play. So there are times a player passes a card (for example a military card) that helps his opponent. There are also times when a player will burn a card to collect 3 gold (which=1 victory point if they still have it at the end of the game) just to prevent the next player from getting it into play.

The game is easily played in thirty minutes and because of the mix of where a player sits, the cards, the randomized choice of wonders (which have an A or B side that also are different and can be played by randomization or choice, depending on the group) there is lots of variety in the game. Players get to choose over and over what they are going to do to maximize points in all areas. No player can win simply based on scoring well in one area, but must be able to play a balanced game.

This isn't a game I would spend money to add to my collection. However, we have to have some games that are quick and easy in our collections. This is one I would definitely sit down and play once or twice as a filler and feel like I enjoyed it.

So how could this game be better?

We have been tempted to randomize the passing of the cards every time by rolling a die. Even we pass to the right, odd, we pass to the left. This offers extra randomization and we have not tried this yet and it may lead to chaos when we do.

Perhaps an extra reward for military strength could be offered at the end of the game, allowing the player with the most military victory points the opportunity to destroy one card from the first age that belongs to a neighborn. Such a reward would exclude the big bonus victory guild cards from the third Age, but also cut a point or two off of another player's score. It would also increase the importance of military might in the game, which may be repulsive to some players.

Both of these suggestions are untried variants thus far, I guess if we ever get around to trying them I'll tell you how they work. In the meantime, I'm waiting for a promo based on King Kong-- after all, I remember from the film that he was the 8th Wonder of the World. :-)

Quoting Charlie Sheen: A first Look at Merchants and Marauders

Today I had to choose between being a pirate or a sailing merchant in a Pirate\Trade game set in the Caribbean during the Pirate\Colonization era. Of course, I choose being a pirate and it cost me the game, sort of.

My opponents drew me in by telling me that the game was a cross between a trade game and a wargame. Not only was it a cross between the two, but it was an EXCELLENT blend of merchant\delivery vs. Pirate attacks. The Game was Z-Man games' "Merchants and Marauders" and delivered a very satisfying afternoon. I can see how the game would move much more quickly once players learned the system and there is nothing too complex here.

Players get to choose whether they will act as merchants or pirates and both have benefits as well as drawbacks. The game has excellent balance between the two choices (usually made based on the skills of player's captain (randomly chosen at the beginning of the game). Each player has three actions on each turn which are either move, search for enemy ships, or conduct business in court. Players get Glory points (victory points) for delivering three of a commodity to a port where it is in demand, defeating an enemy in battle, or defeating a non-player ship (pirate or a National Navy).

The basic mechanics of the game are clean and easily comprehended. They offer a careful balance that prevents a player from doing too many things in one turn or jumping around getting multiple victory points per turn. A player can also purchase Victory Points at a cost of 10 each, but is limited to money he put into his stash (which he can only do at his home port) to do so and can only purchase a maximum of 5 points in this manner. This means a player has to earn 5 Victory points and then balance returning to his home port to stash his gold.

Combat is pretty neat. Players can shoot, board, or flee from a combat and various items assist. For example, everytime a player earns a Glory point he gets a glory card that has a special ability (usually a one time use) and ships can be upgraded to improve either its merchant or combat ability.

The deal breaker for some gamers will be the events. Each game turn begins with a random event card being flipped and read. One event brought war between Spain and England and one of my opponents was unable to enter the port of the opposing nationality to deliver the goods with the demand he needed. Another event brought storms and minimized the number of actions my opponents could perform on that turn. Other events brought in National naval forces that were looking for Pirates, or added non-player pirates. The random events added lots of flavor but I think to a staunch wargamer these events offered a great deal of luck factor and skewed the game to some extent. One player had the worst luck with these events almost always coming at the worst possible time for him and therefore he could not wait for the game to be over.

The most fun I had in the game was holding the lead for most of the game. This allowed me to taunt the other players by quoting Charlie Sheen and saying repeatedly "Winning." I did attempt to avoid calling my opponents "trolls" however.

I had a great time playing this game, but I think the luck factor would cause thie one to get old pretty fast. I can see how a couple of bad events could really leave a player feeling cheated. Still, I prefer events that actually have a chance of impacting the game in a strong way, so I think it is a game I will enjoy.